Today, cases such as international terrorism, misuse of civilian aircraft as a weapon with high destructive power, transfer of weapons of mass destruction, piracy and hijacking in the high seas threaten international peace and security. One of the effective tools of governments in this regard is to control and monitor the flow of civil aviation, which is being carried out according to ICAO operational standards and regulations. Inspection and, if necessary, interception of civilian aircraft is one of the early stages of the control and monitoring process. In this article, the interception of civilian aircraft over the high seas is examined based on the principle of territorial sovereignty and the protection of international peace and security. It is not under the jurisdiction of any country (open seas), what is its status and justification, and if it is allowed, under what conditions and principles should it be done? It seems that governments, as members of the international community and in line with taking care of national security in the first place and international peace and security in the second place, have taken measures in the field of exercising territorial sovereignty and fulfilling obligations related to participation in taking care of public order and security, which is necessary The development and progress of the world is done, which includes the interception of offending civilian aircraft, an issue recognized by the rules of international law and supported by the Security Council as the main founder of international peace and security.The current research is applied in terms of its purpose, and in terms of the method of collecting information, it is a library, and the data analysis will be done qualitatively and with the descriptive method and content analysis.

Considering the critical role of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security, this research analyzes its performance during the Gaza War. The analysis examines the specific actions and inactions of the Security Council, the General Assembly, and the Secretary-General in the context of this conflict. Through the lens of realism theory, the findings reveal that the pursuit of international peace and security is inextricably intertwined with the interests of major global powers. The Gaza War serves as a stark example of the difficulties the UN faces when these interests are in conflict with its primary objectives. This situation highlights the reality that international institutions, despite their formal authority, often play a secondary role to dominant political forces. The study concludes that effective peacebuilding requires acknowledging and addressing the concerns of major powers, which often leads to political considerations outweighing legal principles. This research utilizes an explanatory-analytical approach, drawing on library and internet-based sources.

The Security Council serves as the enforcer of international peace and security within the framework of the United Nations. Initially, there was concern that the Council's involvement in international humanitarian law (IHL) would appear to legitimize war, given the UN Charter's prohibition on the use of force. As a result, the Council refrained from engaging with IHL for over 20 years after its establishment. However, the Council's approach has evolved, reflecting its heightened focus on IHL. It has established a link between international peace and security and the responsibility to protect. Additionally, with the growing influence of international media, especially in reporting on armed conflicts, the Security Council is not immune to the media's impact on its response to violations of humanitarian law. This article aims to explore the role played by the Security Council in the growth and development of IHL, including instances where it has violated these laws through its stances. By employing a descriptive and argumentative approach and drawing on various library sources and international documents, the article concludes that despite occasional failures to respond adequately to humanitarian law violations, whether due to its structure or the interests of its permanent members, the Council has increasingly prioritized humanitarian law issues over time, particularly with greater media involvement.

Although states are restricted from intervening in the affairs of other states without the approval and authorization of the Security Council, they use international rights and laws in various ways to justify their unilateral interventions in each other's internal affairs. Meanwhile, customary international law and the United Nations Charter generally prohibit the use of force in international relations. Thus, the main question of this research is: what international norms and laws do foreign actors use to intervene in the Syrian crisis? The hypothesis of this research is that opponents of the Syrian political regime, including the United States and its regional and international allies, have intervened in the Syrian crisis with the aim of equipping the opposition to the Syrian regime, weakening this regime, and containing and dismantling the resistance front centered around Iran in the region, often claiming to establish international peace and security and sometimes using humanitarian reasons. In contrast, Iran and Russia entered the Syrian conflict based on the principle of invitation and at the request of the legitimate government of Syria, and they have never intended territorial expansion or dominance over the region. Qualitative analysis methods have been used to analyze the research data.

The United Nations possesses the authority to impose economic sanctions to uphold international peace and security, which is entrusted to the Security Council under the framework of the seventh chapter of the United Nations Charter. International sanctions are enforced by both international organizations and governments in response to violations of international laws. The rules and regulations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have evolved into the most comprehensive international norms in the field of trade, often referred to as the World Trade Constitution. Regardless of their membership status, countries are obligated to comply with the rules and regulations of the WTO. This research aims to explore the impact of economic sanctions on the obligations of countries within the WTO and propose international solutions to address the resulting consequences. The hypothesis put forth is that economic sanctions imposed on countries during their accession process directly affect the functioning of the WTO and impede the fulfillment of obligations stemming from membership in the organization.

This article examines the application of Articles 2(4) and 51 of the UN Charter in relation to Israel’s claim of sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Israel has cited historical Jewish rule and invoked “defensive conquest” to justify its position. However, this interpretation misrepresents the non-use of force principle. The article references relevant UN Security Council Resolutions and treaty interpretation rules, emphasizing a strict application of international law, which Israel has overlooked. The UN Charter’s main purpose of maintaining international peace supports this strict interpretation. Consequently, the notion of defensive conquest violates Article 2(4) and customary international law. Additionally, the article discusses the 2024 International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, which reaffirmed the illegality of Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights and highlighted the prohibition of acquiring territory by force, as established by the UN Charter.

International Criminal Law (ICL) and Human Rights Law are distinct but related branches of law which emerge out of the practice needs of specialization, rather the intentional creation of distinct regimes. The ICL contributes to the fight against impunity and the establishment of the international peace by ensuring that the most severe crimes do not go unpunished. The ICL is a subset of international law and its sources are those that comprise international law. During the last century, the global community was faced with the challenge of rebuilding a world torn apart due to the Second World War. In the aftermath of war, international community coalesced around the idea of a permanent court to hold perpetrators to account for the world’s most serious crimes. This vision materialized when States adopted a multilateral treaty called the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. It is noteworthy that the Rome Statute and the ICC have made particular advances in combating impunity and protecting human rights. It is obvious that without such a mechanism for enforcement, the treaties serve only as a reminder of the importance of rights. The purpose of this research is to investigate the role of International Criminal Court in the development and protection of human rights.

Sanctions have become one of the primary foreign policy tools of the European Union, aimed at maintaining international peace, security, and promoting values such as human rights and democracy. However, these measures often face significant legal and enforcement challenges. This article examines the EU’s sanctions framework through the lens of normative power theory, addressing the key research question: "what is the normative legitimacy found of EU sanctions, and how are they enforced both domestically and internationally while managing related legal challenges?" The central hypothesis is that the EU, as a normative power, utilizes sanctions not only as political pressure tools but also as instruments to promote core values such as human rights and democracy. Nevertheless, these sanctions encounter substantial legal challenges on the international stage. The methodology involves legal-normative analysis to assess the legal basis of sanctions within the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). The findings reveal that while EU sanctions are largely effective in aligning with and promoting international norms, they face significant legal and procedural issues. These include challenges related to the proportionality and human rights impacts of sanctions, inconsistencies in enforcement across member states, and difficulties in achieving compliance with international legal standards. The study concludes that addressing these shortcomings is crucial for enhancing the effectiveness and legitimacy of EU sanctions, and it calls for reforms to better balance strategic objectives with legal and ethical considerations.

Peace and security in the national and international dimensions had different meanings for states and the world community in successive periods, and due to this reason there are different approaches to them. With the arrival of new areas such as cyberspace and today artificial intelligence, these classic definitions have undergone changes. Terrorism is known as disrupting international order, peace and security. Considering the characteristics of the cyber space, cyber terrorism raises the need to recreate concepts such as digital security, regularizing the use of artificial intelligence technology, and most importantly, human security.This research was written using library documents and sources on descriptive-analytical method.Cyber threat is one of the most serious threats against national interests and international security. Due to the serious destruction of vital infrastructure, some countries have declared that they consider it as a military attack and will respond to it militarily. Cyber space and artificial intelligence have questioned all common and traditional understandings of the concept of national security. Therefore, these concepts need to be redefined in the light of international custom resulting from the decisions of organizations such as the United Nations and NATO.The technological opportunities created by cyberspace and artificial intelligence shape the future, but do not determine it. In order to manage the challenges ahead, states should put a national strategy on how to use the benefits of cyberspace and artificial intelligence while reducing its harmful effects by adopting measures based on international cooperation.

The purpose of this article is to review and evaluate the legal jurisprudence of the economic sanctions of the Security Council based on Article 39 of the United Nations Charter.

This article is descriptive and analytical. Materials and data are also qualitative and data collection was used in collecting materials and data.
Ethical Considerations: In this article, the originality of the text, honesty and trustworthiness are respected.

In Islamic jurisprudence and history, based on the verses of Surah Baqarah and Yusuf, economic embargo has been used and emphasized as a pressure lever, but it should be used with cruelty in the media. In Article 39 of the United Nations Charter, the Council is empowered to determine cases of threats against international peace and security, violations of international peace and security, and acts of aggression. As the case may be, the Security Council can make recommendations or decisions to implement its findings. Therefore, Article 41 of the United Nations Charter foresees that the Council can adopt measures that do not involve military force, including sanctions, against the guilty country. Therefore, it can be said that from the legal point of view, the Security Council, according to the articles mentioned above, has the authority and permission to accept resolutions that include sanctions.

The effects of the implementation of sanctions on third countries, the right to development, as well as its destructive results on basic human rights, including the right to health, and in general the negative humanitarian effects of international sanctions on the most vulnerable people of the target country, is always one of the major concerns of the international community, which requires an intelligent evaluation.